CBO: Immigration Reform Will Save $1 Trillion over 20 Years

[Visbek]

Sure but the CBO apparently believes these illegal immigrants will suddenly become highly paid productive members of society and I just don't see it.

I don't see any such assumptions in the CBO estimate. Do you? If so, then on what page(s)?

Unskilled laborers making around minimum wage take from the pot; they don't put into it.

And again, the estimate goes into extensive detail about the various tax credits (including ACA and EITC) and entitlements.

Both they and their employers are clearly comfortable with the illegal off-the-books arrangement they currently have and that arrangement avoids paying taxes....

So then, why doesn't your argument apply to citizens as well?

Just look at the refusal to learn English.

What indication do you have that illegal immigrants "refuse to learn English? And if they want to become citizens, why wouldn't they also want all the same things as any other legal immigrant?

 

[Fenton]

CBO | S. 744, Border Security,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/u...-immigration-bill.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Their calculations include:
• Increases in discretionary spending, including Medicare and ACA spending
• Increases in federal revenues due to tax collections
• Costs of the program for numerous government agencies, including start-up costs and employee verification
• Border security costs

Obviously there are numerous variables, including how many people actually apply for RPI status. At any rate, seems like a decent way to convince people to support immigration reform.

You people are just ridiculous.

In order for an accurate prediction there would have to be a accurate 20 year macro economic prediction.

Why don't you people just tell the truth for once. You want voters.

 

[Visbek]

You people are just ridiculous.

I don't work at the CBO.

And the CBO is non-partisan.

In order for an accurate prediction there would have to be a accurate 20 year macro economic prediction.

The goal is not to make a 100% accurate down-to-the-cent prediction, and the CBO explicitly acknowledges that they don't account for macroeconomic trends -- though they do point out that the subsequent population growth should encourage GDP growth.

It's basically just a policy guideline, which gives an idea of likely outcomes.

Normally the CBO only does 10 years. However, that would distort many factors, including the income from penalties, and how RPI's won't qualify to become LPR's for 10 years.

Why don't you people just tell the truth for once. You want voters.

Actually, passing immigration reform is a good way for the Republican Party to get on the good side of Hispanics and other immigrant-heavy groups, and minorities (especially Hispanics) can only benefit from both parties competing for their votes.

"The Truth" is that 87% of Republicans are white; 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama; 93% of blacks voted for Obama, whites will be a minority in the US about 30 years -- and in California, about 1 year.

Republicans need to stop vilifying illegal immigrants now, and start appealing to minority voters, or else they will spend decades losing power and receding into the political wilderness. Merely assuming that all illegal immigrants will vote Democratic by default is not going to help with that process.

Or, to make it more explicit: My interest in immigration reform is not partisan. I'd much rather have Republicans pass a good bill, and get credit for it, than to have the Democrats score a few points. I've been pretty consistent on this point on this forum.

Is that enough "truth" for you?

 

[Fenton]

I don't
work at the CBO.

And the CBO is non-partisan.



The goal is not to make a 100% accurate down-to-the-cent prediction, and the CBO explicitly acknowledges that they don't account for macroeconomic trends -- though they do point out that the subsequent population growth should encourage GDP growth.

It's basically just a policy guideline, which gives an idea of likely outcomes.

Normally the CBO only does 10 years. However, that would distort many factors, including the income from penalties, and how RPI's won't qualify to become LPR's for 10 years.



Actually, passing immigration reform is a good way for the Republican Party to get on the good side of Hispanics and other immigrant-heavy groups, and minorities (especially Hispanics) can only benefit from both parties competing for their votes.

"The Truth" is that 87% of Republicans are white; 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama; 93% of blacks voted for Obama, whites will be a minority in the US about 30 years -- and in California, about 1 year.

Republicans need to stop vilifying illegal immigrants now, and start appealing to minority voters, or else they will spend decades losing power and receding into the political wilderness. Merely assuming that all illegal immigrants will vote Democratic by default is not going to help with that process.

Or, to make it more explicit: My interest in immigration reform is not partisan. I'd much rather have Republicans pass a good bill, and get credit for it, than to have the Democrats score a few points. I've been pretty consistent on this point on this forum.

Is that enough "truth" for you?

Your'e right, they're non-partisan, which means they work with what ever numbers the lying corrupt Democrats give them.

Garbage in/ Garbage out.

If your interest in immigration reform isn't partisan, why do you repeat their Bull Sh** ?

Why repeat something as onerous and blatantly innacurate a a 10 year prediction without a 10 macro economic study. An ACCURATE Macro Economic Study ? ( doesn't exist ).

Sorry, I'm not a Obama supporter which means I'm inteligent enough to know when I'm being lied to.

So you can stop now.

 

[washunut]

Sure but the CBO apparently believes these illegal immigrants will suddenly become highly paid productive members of society and I just don't see it. People don't stand outside a Home Depot looking to do unskilled labor at minimum wage (or below) because they're illegal. They do it because they're not skilled enough to do much else. Going from illegal to legal won't change their skill set which, right now, limits them primarily to unskilled labor at around minimum wage.

Unskilled laborers making around minimum wage take from the pot; they don't put into it.



Both they and their employers are clearly comfortable with the illegal off-the-books arrangement they currently have and that arrangement avoids paying taxes, Obamacare requirements, etc. The U.S. government isn't exactly doing a bang up job enforcing these immigration and labor laws.



Just look at the refusal to learn English.

I'm not approaching this from a "my culture is better than yours" position but rather a "how do you expect to get a job?" one. Just how many good non-English speaking jobs are out there to believe these people will suddenly start putting into the pot?

I think when you look beyond the people and crossed the border illegally so see a different side to this. Just like most immigrant groups, the people crossing the border have greater aspirations for their children. Looking into once and second generation kids and grandkids of these illegals you will see that next generations ( not every single one) do better as they not have the stigma of being illegal and thus no longer have to take whatever lousy jobs employers are willing to break the law to give them.

In the 20th century, although immigrants went through Ellis Island, there was the same outcry about the "harm" the Irish, Eastern Europeans and then Asian immigrants would do. History has proven them wrong.

 

[Dapper Andy]

I think when you look beyond the people and crossed the border illegally so see a different side to this. Just like most immigrant groups, the people crossing the border have greater aspirations for their children. Looking into once and second generation kids and grandkids of these illegals you will see that next generations ( not every single one) do better as they not have the stigma of being illegal and thus no longer have to take whatever lousy jobs employers are willing to break the law to give them.

In the 20th century, although immigrants went through Ellis Island, there was the same outcry about the "harm" the Irish, Eastern Europeans and then Asian immigrants would do. History has proven them wrong.

You're comparing 19th and early 20th century immigrants to 21st century immigrants with 19th and early 20th century education and skill sets.

I don't object to Hispanics immigrating to the United States.

I object to Hispanics with no skills to support themselves immigrating to the United States.

 

[blaxshep]

I object to Hispanics with no skills to support themselves immigrating to the United States.

I don't even object to that, what I object to is them immigrating here illegally and the liberals that support them doing so.

 

[head of joaquin]

I don't even object to that, what I object to is them immigrating here illegally and the liberals that support them doing so.

Pssst: the reason they immigrate is because the rich CEOs of big industries like meat packing, agribusiness and hospitality hire and exploit them.

They're your guys, not mine.

 

[ReformCollege]

Pssst: the reason they immigrate is because the rich CEOs of big industries like meat packing, agribusiness and hospitality hire and exploit them.

They're your guys, not mine.

Its not exploitation if they are voluntarily coming over here in droves to take those jobs.

 

[Woodman909]

Both sides of the isle are looking at this bill as some way to ensure their political foothold going forward. Who is going to suffer??? Everyone. Unfortunate that we feel we cannot send all current illegals home, stop new illegals from coming in. Instead, congress is striving to grant amnesty, burden the already troubled economy with millions more to be put on the public dole. We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of fools.

 

[Visbek]

I object to Hispanics with no skills to support themselves immigrating to the United States.

And again:

1) the report is saying that when you take all those entitlements and tax credits, and compare it to the increase in tax revenues, the net result is beneficial.

2) the immigration reform bill plans to increase slots for highly skilled immigrants as well.

3) Why single out Hispanics?

 

[jonny5]

And again:

1) the report is saying that when you take all those entitlements and tax credits, and compare it to the increase in tax revenues, the net result is beneficial.

2) the immigration reform bill plans to increase slots for highly skilled immigrants as well.

3) Why single out Hispanics?

93% of illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf

 

[Dapper Andy]

And again:

1) the report is saying that when you take all those entitlements and tax credits, and compare it to the increase in tax revenues, the net result is beneficial.

And again:

I just don't see it.

Saying this bill will save a trillion dollars is really another way of saying this bill will bring in a trillion dollars in tax revenue. I just don't see where that money will come from. It certainly won't come from the day laborers, bus boys, chambermaids, etc. who are and will continue to be paid around minimum wage.

Where is this additional trillion dollars in revenue going to come from?

 

[Visbek]

And again: I just don't see it.

Have you actually read the CBO report?

Saying this bill will save a trillion dollars is really another way of saying this bill will bring in a trillion dollars in tax revenue.

Yes. That is exactly what the CBO report is saying.

I just don't see where that money will come from.

Read the report, and then you will be in a better position to criticize their assumptions and conclusions.

 

[Dapper Andy]

Have you actually read the CBO report?



Yes. That is exactly what the CBO report is saying.



Read the report, and then you will be in a better position to criticize their assumptions and conclusions.

I read the New York Times article you linked to and I just don't see where the money is coming from.

You obviously can't see where it is coming from any better than I can too. Let's face it we're nearly 5 pages in and for all the "but the CBO report says!" you keep going on and on about, you haven't given me one example of where the money is coming from.

 

[Visbek]

I read the New York Times article you linked to and I just don't see where the money is coming from.

Here's the full report. Revenues section starts on page 44. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf

At the risk of oversimplifying:
• Estimating $459 billion in revenues over 20 years
• That's roughly $23 billion per year.
• With 10 million immigrants, that means collecting $2300 per person.
• Almost all of it is payroll taxes. About $2 billion is fees and penalties.
• The bill reviewed by the CBO also includes a mandatory employment verification system, which would replace the current voluntary system. I.e. they expect compliance with the law to improve.

Obviously there are a lot of complications. But this is far from an outlandish claim.

Nor is it my fault if I tell you to read the report (and make up your own mind), and you repeatedly fail to do so.

 

[Fenton]

Here's the full report. Revenues section starts on page 44. http:// www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf

At the risk of oversimplifying:
• Estimating $459 billion in revenues over 20 years
• That's roughly $23 billion per year.
• With 10 million immigrants, that means collecting $2300 per person.
• Almost all of it is payroll taxes. About $2 billion is fees and penalties.
• The bill reviewed by the CBO also includes a mandatory employment verification system, which would replace the current voluntary system. I.e. they expect compliance with the law to improve.

Obviously there are a lot of complications. But this is far from an outlandish claim.

Nor is it my fault if I tell you to read the report (and make up your own mind), and you repeatedly fail to do so.

Estimated revenues 10 years out with out a " accurate " Macro-Economic estimate is the same thing we got with ObamaCare.

Now, of-course its going to cost much much more.

Why do you post this drek ? Haven't you realized yet that DEMOCRATS lie ???

 

[Dapper Andy]

Here's the full report. Revenues section starts on page 44. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf

At the risk of oversimplifying:
• Estimating $459 billion in revenues over 20 years
• That's roughly $23 billion per year.
• With 10 million immigrants, that means collecting $2300 per person.
• Almost all of it is payroll taxes. About $2 billion is fees and penalties.
• The bill reviewed by the CBO also includes a mandatory employment verification system, which would replace the current voluntary system. I.e. they expect compliance with the law to improve.

Obviously there are a lot of complications. But this is far from an outlandish claim.

Nor is it my fault if I tell you to read the report (and make up your own mind), and you repeatedly fail to do so.

Yes, you've told me all about the money coming in.

What I'm asking is where this money is coming from.

Right now we're roughly collecting $0.00 a year. You're telling me we're going to collect $23,000,000,000.00 a year if this bill is passed.

Where is this $23,000,000,000.00 a year coming from?

 

[274ina]

And the CBO report also says that" it will depress US CITIZEN WAGES FOR A DECADE OR MORE

 

[austrianecon]

I don't work at the CBO.

And the CBO is non-partisan.

LOL

The goal is not to make a 100% accurate down-to-the-cent prediction, and the CBO explicitly acknowledges that they don't account for macroeconomic trends -- though they do point out that the subsequent population growth should encourage GDP growth.

It's basically just a policy guideline, which gives an idea of likely outcomes.

Normally the CBO only does 10 years. However, that would distort many factors, including the income from penalties, and how RPI's won't qualify to become LPR's for 10 years.

Of course it's not suppose to be 100% accurate as the CBO is never 100% accurate. They are maybe close to 100% on first year analysis after that there are errors and the further you go along the errors become bigger.
CBO and US taxes: why they always get it wrong
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/24/CBO-Calculation-Error-Explodes-Immigration-Surplus-Claim

 

[washunut]

Here's the full report. Revenues section starts on page 44. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf

At the risk of oversimplifying:
• Estimating $459 billion in revenues over 20 years
• That's roughly $23 billion per year.
• With 10 million immigrants, that means collecting $2300 per person.
• Almost all of it is payroll taxes. About $2 billion is fees and penalties.
• The bill reviewed by the CBO also includes a mandatory employment verification system, which would replace the current voluntary system. I.e. they expect compliance with the law to improve.

Obviously there are a lot of complications. But this is far from an outlandish claim.

Nor is it my fault if I tell you to read the report (and make up your own mind), and you repeatedly fail to do so.

Not to malign the CBO, but 10 year estimates of anything are meaningless except to perhaps point to the direction. Thus if they are any good, then the projection might make more sense to say deficits will go down not up over the next 10 years.

There are so many variables, for example you cite 10 million illegals, is that 10 million working aged illegals are there no minor or aged illegals? If this is payroll taxes, then folks have to be able to collect unemployment, which for seasonal workers will be a big number. What happens when they pay into social security and then hit 65? Do they ever get to collect. Is it reasonable to expect that all employers/employees that now transact in cash, below the minimum wage will suddenly get paychecks at or above the minimum wage?

In addition this talks to the impact to the Federal budget, not sure it addresses the state and local budgets, and except for some mandatory spending for business does not take into account any non mandatory spending by businesses.

Then of course you have to look at things like the unemployment rate, inflation, growth of the economy to make these multi-year projections. We can't get right the growth rate for the last quarter without several projections but we can in a 10 year estimate.

Just to cut off any rejoiner about I don't like the answer so I am dumping on the CBO, this has always been my view. I hold the same view of 5 year business plans that used to be the rage, a lot of work that went into the wastebin.

 

[Visbek]

is that 10 million working aged illegals are there no minor or aged illegals?

Working age

If this is payroll taxes, then folks have to be able to collect unemployment, which for seasonal workers will be a big number.

They included that in their calculations

What happens when they pay into social security and then hit 65?

That's presumably out of the 20 year span under discussion. Obviously, a 50-year prediction is really not going to fly.

Is it reasonable to expect that all employers/employees that now transact in cash, below the minimum wage will suddenly get paychecks at or above the minimum wage?

1) Employers will shift from a voluntary system to a mandatory system.
2) If you're staying outside the system, you also aren't costing the system as much money.

In addition this talks to the impact to the Federal budget, not sure it addresses the state and local budgets

Federal only, including Medicare/Medicaid

Then of course you have to look at things like the unemployment rate, inflation, growth of the economy to make these multi-year projections.

You also have to recognize how bringing 10 million people out of the shadows will grow the economy, especially since they will be working and their tax revenues will help pay for the Baby Boomers who are aging out of the job market, and collecting SSI.

Again, the list of items they do and do not take into account are all listed in the report.

Just to cut off any rejoiner about I don't like the answer so I am dumping on the CBO, this has always been my view. I hold the same view of 5 year business plans that used to be the rage, a lot of work that went into the wastebin.

Uh yeah, Communist 5 Year Plans have nothing to do with CBO predictions.

We're not dealing with a centralized economy, with bad incentive systems, minimal economic freedom, and poor responsiveness to changing market conditions. The CBO is not guaranteeing specific amounts 20 years out. They are adopting a bunch of assumptions based on how the law is drafted at the time of analysis, and making an estimate of how the law will affect the economy. It is provided as a policy guide, not a definitive set of targets.

 

[washunut]

Working age



They included that in their calculations



That's presumably out of the 20 year span under discussion. Obviously, a 50-year prediction is really not going to fly.



1) Employers will shift from a voluntary system to a mandatory system.
2) If you're staying outside the system, you also aren't costing the system as much money.



Federal only, including Medicare/Medicaid



You also have to recognize how bringing 10 million people out of the shadows will grow the economy, especially since they will be working and their tax revenues will help pay for the Baby Boomers who are aging out of the job market, and collecting SSI.

Again, the list of items they do and do not take into account are all listed in the report.



Uh yeah, Communist 5 Year Plans have nothing to do with CBO predictions.

We're not dealing with a centralized economy, with bad incentive systems, minimal economic freedom, and poor responsiveness to changing market conditions. The CBO is not guaranteeing specific amounts 20 years out. They are adopting a bunch of assumptions based on how the law is drafted at the time of analysis, and making an estimate of how the law will affect the economy. It is provided as a policy guide, not a definitive set of targets.

Last point told me to move on. Site is called debate politics, too many think it is "insult politics".